Since she didn't actually say that Chelsea was in the WTC and you insist she did, you are either mistaken or telling an untruth. Since you have comprehensively demonstrated that you don't give people the benefit of the doubt in such a situation, I am not at all sure why you think you are entitled to it.

I think I got it now. Because I repeated something negative about Hillary I am de-facto a liar and gives you license to twist and spin in an empty effort to prove it. I insisted? When? I comprehensively demonstrated? Comprehensively? That's a pretty broad brush. Comprehensively, after I admited that I was repeating reports from news media and not relaying things I have personally heard from the source?

Who are you trying to impress with your bluster and bully? Really gets under your skin to have someone challenge you, eh?

Indeed, and hence the mis-speak: being "under the threat of sniper fire" (as she writes in her book) and "being under sniper fire" (as she said in her speech) are not the same thing.

Agreed.

Quote:

However, she did not say anything about being "shot at," which would have revealed more than mis-speaking.

Except the "under sniper fire" bit, followed by the running to the car with the heads down bit, added to the missing the reception bit. Just the "under sniper fire" I can accept as a mis-speak. The remainder of her statement leads me, and apparently many more, to believe it was a bit more than a mis-spoken statement.

Quote:

Saying that she did seems to me to be going out of one's way to misrepresent her. Kind of hypocritical, too, if you're doing it to show that she can't be trusted to tell the truth (shades of Al Gore, anyone?)

I'm not stating that I'm doing it to show that she can't be trusted. That strawman won't stand. I'm just pointing out, and not going out of my wat to do so, that to this listener, she embellished her tale.

You seem to be willing to defend her statement to the death. This us understandable considering how much you have voiced your support for her in the upcoming election. However, as I have no particular favourites in the US election, and have no direct stake in its outcome, I'm looking at this from a greater position of objectivity. And from where I sit, her "mis-speak" is bordering on a lie.

I think I got it now. Because I repeated something negative about Hillary I am de-facto a liar and gives you license to twist and spin in an empty effort to prove it.

My twisting and spinning seems largely to consist of expecting you to support your claims. I realise that many people find the repetition of urban legend as fact to be acceptable, even encouraged, particularly when the target is a politician, but that doesn't fly here. So let's see some support for your claim that Sen. Clinton said Chelsea Clinton was in the WTC on September 11, if you please.

I think I got it now. Because I repeated something negative about Hillary I am de-facto a liar and gives you license to twist and spin in an empty effort to prove it. I insisted? When? I comprehensively demonstrated? Comprehensively? That's a pretty broad brush. Comprehensively, after I admited that I was repeating reports from news media and not relaying things I have personally heard from the source?

Who are you trying to impress with your bluster and bully? Really gets under your skin to have someone challenge you, eh?

Calm down. I heard reports of what Clinton said about 9/11 as well, and my recollection is that she said that Chelsea was jigging 'in the area of' the WTC at the time, and it took a while to determine that Chelsea was not all that close. Now if the WTC was the whole complex, rather than the 2 tallest towers (I don't know), then she may well have been jogging through the WTC at times when she visited the area. But I don't recall any claims that she said that Chelsea was IN the WTC, and that, I believe, is what is garnering the criticism.

Calm down. I heard reports of what Clinton said about 9/11 as well, and my recollection is that she said that Chelsea was jigging 'in the area of' the WTC at the time, and it took a while to determine that Chelsea was not all that close. Now if the WTC was the whole complex, rather than the 2 tallest towers (I don't know), then she may well have been jogging through the WTC at times when she visited the area. But I don't recall any claims that she said that Chelsea was IN the WTC, and that, I believe, is what is garnering the criticism.

That, and the unnecessary vitriol. And, of course, the irony of a poster making a false claim about someone in order to decry her as a liar, and then being deeply wounded when it is pointed out that people in glass houses have certain vulnerabilities.

That, and the unnecessary vitriol. And, of course, the irony of a poster making a false claim about someone in order to decry her as a liar, and then being deeply wounded when it is pointed out that people in glass houses have certain vulnerabilities.

To set the record straight:
From MediaMatters-
Summary: Dick Morris falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton "says Chelsea [Clinton] was in danger on 9-11, jogging around the towers of the World Trade Center and was saved only 'cause she ducked into a coffee shop." In fact, Hillary Clinton made no such claim; rather, she said that her daughter had "gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit."

and
On the May 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan claimed that Clinton, following 9-11, "went on national television and fabricated where her daughter was, talked about how her daughter [was] out jogging that morning and stopped near the towers, heard the planes crash. You could imagine how traumatic that would be for this young woman, and we all feel enormous compassion." Buchanan continued: "It was fabricated. It was all made up. Chelsea herself says she never left the apartment that morning. And so what kind of character would get on national -- a mother would get on national TV and make up stories about her daughter?"

So, it turns out that Hillary did not say Chelsea had been in the WTC. I was wrong but that doesn't make me a liar. And it doesn't mean Hillary didn't lie about Chelsea and what she experienced on 9/11. Even those who debunked Morris' and Buchanan's lies point out that Hillary said Chelsea was in a coffee shop when the first plane struck and heard the explosion. Chelsea, on the other hand, said she was home and was contacted by a friend who told her what had happened. So she still lied about it, but she told a different lie than the one I credited her with. And she lied about being under sniper fire.

It's really hypocritical that the same people who's panties got twisted in a knot over Bill Clinton's parsing of what is is do the same thing with Hillary Clinton's words.

To make the claim that Hillary is a huge liar since she wasn't actually shot at and that her daughter wasn't actually at the WTC is far more disingenous than Hillary Clinton ever will be.

I believe you are not saying that honesty is not important, but it does seem that you are making honesty a relative thing instead of an absolute. Would you care to step into the minefield and attempt to define when it is OK to speak untruth vs when it is not? Feel free to discuss how "who" the speaker is may affect the rightness or wrongness of speaking untruth.

BTW, I recall a lengthy discussion on this board a few months ago wherein a majority of posters seemed to decry the word "panties" as symbolic sexism. Just a friendly caution.

Really? I don't remember that one at all. I know a lot of women here dislike the word panties, but I don't recall that explanation for why.

/hijack

I don't recall the thread, but it's common banter among "the boys" to insult each other's masculinity by stating that someone needs to take off the panties, put the big girl panties on, or that he's got his panties all tied up in a knot. Maybe not a lot of women have been around to hear this, but it is definitely insulting, and definitely sexist. /responsetohijack

I don't recall the thread, but it's common banter among "the boys" to insult each other's masculinity by stating that someone needs to take off the panties, put the big girl panties on, or that he's got his panties all tied up in a knot. Maybe not a lot of women have been around to hear this, but it is definitely insulting, and definitely sexist. /responsetohijack

Oh, yeah, that's totally sexist, but it's not why I dislike the word panties. It just sounds kinds icky and demeaning--it's very little girl-esque.

I've been known to tell people to put on their big boy/girl pants and take care of their problems like an adult. And I don't see any sexism in the "panties in a wad" phrase. I just really hate the word "panties." It grates on me.

I believe you are not saying that honesty is not important, but it does seem that you are making honesty a relative thing instead of an absolute. Would you care to step into the minefield and attempt to define when it is OK to speak untruth vs when it is not? Feel free to discuss how "who" the speaker is may affect the rightness or wrongness of speaking untruth.

To begin with, we all know that it is possible to deliberately misdirect a listener, without ever speaking any untruth at all. Such a person can't be said to be "lying," since every single word is true. But it is a form of evasion.

At the same time, entirely honest people can misspeak, or use a phrase that another person interprets differently.

Being "under sniper fire" does not mean exactly the same as "being shot at." The phrases may seem to be related, but they aren't identical. An area might be posted as a "sniper zone" in which case one inside that area could be "under sniper fire" even if no shots were fired in that entire day or week.

Some of the troops deployed to active combat duty in Iraq will never see an enemy combatant. They will never be downrange of active enemy fire. They will never be inside the burst radius of explosives. Would you deny them combat pay, since they were never "in combat?" Would you deny them the bragging rights, years later when they choose to run for Congress, of saying that they served "in combat?"

Hillary has enough sins against her that there is absolutely no need to invent new ones, or to exaggerate the existing ones. This is one of the things I find most foul about the vast conspiracy of hatred that has grown into a cottage industry in this country.

Even those who debunked Morris' and Buchanan's lies point out that Hillary said Chelsea was in a coffee shop when the first plane struck and heard the explosion. Chelsea, on the other hand, said she was home and was contacted by a friend who told her what had happened. So she still lied about it, but she told a different lie than the one I credited her with. And she lied about being under sniper fire.

My response to this is the same as it was six years ago when I was debunking the same charges on another site. There is no evidence that Sen. Clinton knowingly misrepresented where Chelsea was and what she was up to during the attack. I don't know about you, but I don't always tell my mother exactly where I am, even at very momentous times, and even when I do, she sometimes misunderstands what I said. I see no reason why that couldn't also be the case with Chelsea's mom, who had rather a lot to do just after 9/11.

Being "under sniper fire" does not mean exactly the same as "being shot at."

Silas, I pretty much agree with your analysis but being "under sniper fire" does mean being shot at. One cannot be "under fire" if there is no firing taking place. So if you come under fire it means somebody is actively trying to kill you or those around you. If you are in an area where there has been sniper activity there is a possibility that you may come under sniper fire, may be nerve wracking but not the same thing. And claiming it is little different from a phoney Veteran claiming battle experience he never had.

Being "under sniper fire" does not mean exactly the same as "being shot at." The phrases may seem to be related, but they aren't identical. An area might be posted as a "sniper zone" in which case one inside that area could be "under sniper fire" even if no shots were fired in that entire day or week.

Some of the troops deployed to active combat duty in Iraq will never see an enemy combatant. They will never be downrange of active enemy fire. They will never be inside the burst radius of explosives. Would you deny them combat pay, since they were never "in combat?" Would you deny them the bragging rights, years later when they choose to run for Congress, of saying that they served "in combat?"

I have to disagree with this. To me, being under fire means that you are actively being shot at. For me to say that I was under fire when the last shot was actually fired a week ago sounds a little misleading. I couldn't honestly say that I was in a house fire if the place burned down days before I got there.

As far as military combat goes, they don't get combat pay for being shot at, they get combat pay for the elevated possibility of being shot at; that is, they are ordered into an area that is inherently less safe because of enemy action. To my mind, those soldiers who have served in combat areas are combat veterans, whether they drew fire or not. But while they are heroes in my mind, they could not say they were under fire unless they actually were.

Anyway, if Hillary does get the Democrat nod, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the media, and how often it will be brought out to compare her to her opponent, who actually has been under fire.

Silas, I pretty much agree with your analysis but being "under sniper fire" does mean being shot at. One cannot be "under fire" if there is no firing taking place. So if you come under fire it means somebody is actively trying to kill you or those around you. If you are in an area where there has been sniper activity there is a possibility that you may come under sniper fire, may be nerve wracking but not the same thing. And claiming it is little different from a phoney Veteran claiming battle experience he never had.

Kosovo was still a war zone. By definition a war zone has bullets flying occasionally. If I entered a war zone I certainly would be concerned about potential sniper fire.

Being "under sniper fire" does not mean exactly the same as "being shot at."

Yes, it does. To be "under fire" means that someone is actively, at that moment, shooting at you. In 20 years in the army, I have never heard any other use of the phrase.

Quote:

An area might be posted as a "sniper zone" in which case one inside that area could be "under sniper fire" even if no shots were fired in that entire day or week.

Please show an example of this by someone in the military. I've never encountered such use.

Quote:

Some of the troops deployed to active combat duty in Iraq will never see an enemy combatant. They will never be downrange of active enemy fire. They will never be inside the burst radius of explosives.

And while they may say they served in a combat zone, they would be regarded as liars if they said they were in combat. I served in a combat zone...I even had explosions going on all around me...but I never served in combat and would never say I did. (the explosions were our own ammunition dump exploding in an accident and subsequent explosions of the ordinance left over).

Quote:

Would you deny them combat pay, since they were never "in combat?"

Semantics are important here. Technically, there is no such thing as "combat pay." There is "Imminent Danger" pay, which means serving in an area designated as an Imminent Danger area, and "Hostile Fire Pay" which requires that the individual is:

Subject to hostile fire or mine explosions

In an area near hostile fire or mine explosions which endanger the member

Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, mines, or any hostile action.

Since those are legal definitions, differences in ordinary speech are irrelevant: a person is either legally entitled to the pay based on the definition or they're not. Is a person serving in an Imminent Danger Area actually in imminent danger? Probably not (Bahrain is currently an IDA), but it's the legal definition that's important. If the requirements specifically said that actually being under fire was necessary (which IIRC was the rule in Vietnam) then that would be different.

Quote:

Would you deny them the bragging rights, years later when they choose to run for Congress, of saying that they served "in combat?"

Yes, I would, if they didn't serve in combat. Serving in a combat zone and serving in combat are different. Current army insignia make things a little easier...you are entitled to wear on your right shoulder the patch of a unit you served in an imminent danger area, receiving imminent danger pay. This is commonly known as the combat patch, though there is no expectation that actual combat was seen. Contrary to this is the Combat Action Badge, which requires that the: Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement. Combat Zone versus Combat.

ETA: the rules for combat patches have changed since I was awarded one, and under the current rules, I would not be authorized the wear of my patch since my unit did not actually participate in any combat (we got there after the war).